News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

The article reports Joe Biden’s comments in an interview with Jon Favreau on “Pod Save America,” a liberal podcast.

This is part of the conversation:

FAVREAU: Well, sir, I wanted to start with the economy but, real quick, if Democrats take back the Senate and a seat opens up on the Supreme Court in the next two years, should Democrats hold that seat open like Republicans did to Obama?

BIDEN: I don’t think so.

FAVREAU: Even if it means they get another Gorsuch?

BIDEN: No, no, that’s a big difference. Remember, I’m the guy that kept there from being a guy who was maybe the most brilliant conservative who was nominated for the Supreme Court (Favreau snickers) and I kept him off the court. And I was able to … in the Judiciary Committee (to) defeat (Clarence) Thomas (nominated by the elder Bush four years later). Bork got flat defeated. Thomas got defeated in committee. But the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, not a committee shall advise and consent. And so, you know, you can, I don’t think we should step away for a moment.

The article concludes:

…Biden lets the cat out of the bag. The biggest problem for liberals when it came to Bork was not his originalist views of the Constitution, or that he pulled the trigger for Nixon in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, but the fact that he was brilliant and could be expected to push the court to the right for generations to come — hence he had to be destroyed. How seemingly gracious of Biden to acknowledge Bork as legal exemplar, albeit long after it mattered and seeing how it is now beyond dispute.

Worth noting is that Bork’s months-long nomination battle in 1987 roughly aligned with Biden’s first doomed run for the presidency which ended amid growing evidence of propensity for plagiarizing remarks from other politicians. Also leading the charge against Bork that year was Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. This week, a movie comes out portraying how Kennedy left a woman to drown in his car while he waited 10 hours to report the accident and focused instead on saving his political hide. It’s taken Hollywood nearly 50 years to depict one of worst — and most dramatic — political scandals of the last century. But again, better late than never.

It is truly sad that we have reached the point in our government where the political leanings of a Supreme Court nominee are more important than his qualifications. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that this is ever going to change.

Yesterday Fox News reported that a militant alleged to have been involved in the attack on the Annex in Benghazi, Libya, has been captured. The man (Mustafa al-Imam) is being brought to Washington, D.C., where he will be tried in federal court.

Khatallah had been awaiting trail since 2014, when U.S. Army commandos and FBI agents captured him in Benghazi and put him on a Navy ship for detention in an American prison inside the United States.

I have mixed emotions about bringing this man into the United States. If he is given the full rights of the U.S. Constitution even though he is not an American citizen, the discovery phase of a trial could make the prosecution very difficult–we might have to divulge classified information in that phase. However, if bringing him back the the United States is an indication that he will receive a speedy trial and verdict, that is a good thing. It is not a good idea to imprison terrorists in America. There will always be a risk of a hostage situation in an attempt to free them. Remember, we are dealing with people who believe that if they die fighting infidels, they will go to heaven. We are the infidels. If the man is convicted and given a prison sentence, it would be better to send him to Guantanamo than to imprison him in the United States.

Leadership flows from the top. If the leaders of our government respect their fellow Americans, that respect filters down to the state and local level. If our federal government is out of control, we can expect our local government to be moving in that direction.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial (there is no link–it is subscribers only) entitled, “Disclosure as a Political Weapon,” The article relates the experience of Robin Ferris, a resident of Puyallup, Washington. Ms. Ferris campaigned to recall former Pierce County treasurer Dale Washam. She charged Mr. Washam with mistreatment of employees, abuse of government resources, and other misdeeds. There is a state law that limits the amount voters can donate to a recall campaign to $800. Ms. Ferris hired the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the law on a pro bono basis. The IJ won the case., but that wasn’t the end of the story. The Washington state Public Disclosure Commission threatened to fine Ms. Ferris more than $500,000 for failing to report the pro bono work of the IJ as an in-kind contribution to her recall campaign, stating that the ‘contribution’ should have been listed in the campaign’s public disclosures. The Commission had previously threatened a pro-life group, Family Pac, with similar action after losing a referenda campaign in 2010.

So why should we be concerned about this? Keep in mind the recent Internal Revenue Service scandal regarding conservative groups, and consider that pro bono legal services as political contributions could cost many groups their 501 (c) (3) status. Organizations with the 501(c) (3) status are prohibited from direct engagement with political campaigns. Included in these groups are such politically diverse organizations as the ACLU and the ACLJ. Without these organizations, only wealthy Americans would be able to challenge the actions of the government.

The article concludes:

Democrats and their media allies have made a crusade of more disclosure as a way to discourage political spending by businesses. But as the Institute for Justices’s tax-exempt jeopardy shows, disclosure is a weapon that can be used to silence many groups, including those that fight for civil rights and legal due process. It’s another example of liberals trampling on liberal principles.

Those of us who are conservatives need to remember that we have to guard all of our rights all of the time. It seems that there are those in America who choose winning elections over free speech.

The economy is recovering at the speed of snails. The last raise my husband received paid more to the government than it did to him–and he is one of the lucky ones who has a steady job. So who is prospering in the current economy?

While Loudoun (VA) ranks at the top, it’s far from alone on the list of wealthiest counties that surround Washington. In fact, it’s just the beginning. The neighboring counties of Falls Church City, Fairfax, Arlington and Prince William in Virginia and Howard County in Maryland all make the cut, giving the D.C. area six of the nation’s ten wealthiest counties. All boast median household incomes between $93,000 and $117,000 annually.

This is one of many reasons why the Tea Party exists. This is also one of many reasons why the Tea Party is such a threat to the government establishment (both Democrats and Republicans). But it gets even more interesting…

Clarice Feldman posted an article at American Thinker today about how the current scandals are impacting the pocketbooks of Washington lawyers. The article is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but makes some really good points. The scene is a Washington bistro frequented by lawyers, politicians, and upper-level civil servants. The restaurant is packed with lawyers celebrating the coming uptick of business in Washington.

This is just a sample of the article–please follow the link above to read the entire article:

“What are the colored badges for?” I asked.

“They signify which scandal defendants they are representing so they can exchange useful procedural and related information without disclosing who they are representing or breaching client confidentiality. The orange tag means the attorney is representing someone in the Benghazi scandal.”

“Yeah, so far Holder and his deputy Cole. Will Cole cover for Holder who preposterously testified he recused himself because he speaks to the press, that he can’t remember when he recused himself, and that he didn’t follow the statutory mandate for recusal procedure?”

“You did notice,” Joe laughed, “that the ‘security breach’ which Holder claims occasioned the wiretapping of reporters turns out to be AP waiting to publish until they got the CIA’s approval but before the White House crowd could publicly pat themselves on the back for getting the underwear bomber?”

“Wasn’t that something? The whole story is too flimsy to hold a drop of water and even the press can grasp this one.”

Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members’ way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.

“Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, “Our GI‘s earn enough” and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I’m wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117..80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,49040 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for “Network Technicians” in the Washington , D.C. Area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three yearsˆ™ experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum…………. I’m sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.

Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military’s lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full “deployment experience.”

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they’ll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they’ve been squandering the “vast” piles of cash the government has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites.. And when you’re actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren’t enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE‘s (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won’t be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish…On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can’t offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.

And you, Ms… Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? What do you think someone should be paid to defend your life, and the life of your family?

I am warning you ahead of time that this article is going in a number of different directions. If you don’t want to bother to read the whole thing, the bottom line is, “Please follow the link to the ‘Fix It’ Series”–Rep. John Campbell’s plan for turning around the economy. Rep. Campbell suggests nine basic steps that would make a great difference.

According to Quoteland.com, Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist (1867-1928), stated: “There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.” That statement has been quoted in various forms by American Presidents, corporate leaders, and various coaches. It still stands as a truthful statement. Washington isn’t broken–it’s just that some of the leadership are not taking full advantage of the talent around them.

John Campbell is a member of the U. S. House of Representatives representing the 48th Congressional District of district in California. He is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and small business owner. He serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and served on several Congressional economic working groups in 2008 and 2009. When you consider his business background, it is not surprising that he has put a plan together to turn around America’s struggling economy. You can find that plan at the “Fix It Series.” Please follow the link to see what is possible if the leadership in Washington was more interested in solutions than politics.

Some of the lessons I think our representatives in Washington need to learn are found in a book I recently read. “How Starbucks Saved My Life,” by Michael Gates Gill. This book tells the story of a high ranking corporate type who had grown up in a privileged environment (Yale University, Skull and Bones, easy entry into the corporate world, etc.). The book details the changes in his life that occurred when he suddenly lost his corporate job. One of the major lessons in the book is the value of respecting yourself and the people who work for you and with you. I understand that Washington politicians need to get re-elected, but a little cooperation and respect would go a long way in the current environment.

Harry Truman once stated, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” This statement tells me that the environment in Washington is challenging at best and has been for a long time. At this point in our history, we need to grow up and start hearing each others ideas so that we can solve the serious problems facing our country.

CARNEY: We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

It really is a shame that Americans are not allowed to sue the government. The article reports that if this information is true, Ambassador Patterson failed to do her duty to protect American interests in Egypt. The American Embassy is considered U. S. territory, and Ms. Patterson’s job (and oath of office) is to protect that territory.

The article further reports:

Given that the siege of the Cairo embassy unfolded over many hours, the source wondered if new orders pertaining to the rules of engagement were ever issued.

Ambassador Patterson was in Washington D.C. during the attacks, according to reports.

“I cannot believe that over an eight hour period that nobody … in that chain of command did not ask those questions of their superiors,” the source said. “These protestors did not just appear and within 20 minutes climb the wall.”

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied the Free Beacon’s report in a statement to Fox News.

Of course he did. I think we need some new security people.

UPDATE:

Special Report on Fox News is reporting that this story is not true. I will post more after I find out who is telling the truth.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story about the latest unemployment numbers (an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent). The story included the chart below.

I’m not an economist–I have enough trouble just keeping track of the family budget, but there are a few things I have figured out over the years. One of them is that you can make numbers say anything you want to say if you approach them correctly. What is happening with our unemployment numbers is not unique to the Obama Administration–it is a game that has been played by Washington politicians of all political stripes for a long time. In very simple terms, if there were no jobs in America–no one was working–but no one was looking for work, Washington would report the unemployment number as zero. Yes, you read that right. If you want to lower the unemployment number, all you have to do is not count the people who are not looking for work and the unemployment number automatically gets lower. It’s magic–no–it’s Washington sleight of hand. If you look at the chart above, you can see what has happened to the American labor force in the past ten years or so.

Last month The Hill reported that Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has introduced a one-page bill entitled the REAL Unemployment Calculation Act (H.R. 4128), which would require “the federal government [to] cite, as its official unemployment calculation, the figure that takes into account those who are no longer looking for work,” not only those individuals actively seeking jobs. According to Thomas.gov, the Library of Congress website, the latest action on that bill was 3/29/2012 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

I don’t know if there will ever be a convenient time to report honestly what the unemployment figures are. If you surf the Internet, you will find claims that the current real unemployment number is about 11 percent. It would be nice if accurate numbers were reported to Americans regardless of which political party is in charge.

I am not kidding. I found the link to this information at Pravda (Russian for ‘truth”). I wonder why they are posting the story, considering that President Obama is their friend, but on the other hand, the current Russian government is not known for its pro-American feelings. How would the Russians feel about President Joe Biden? That is just a scary thought.

Anyway, the Tea Party Tribune (who knew they had a publication?) posted a memo by nine state Attorneys General listing the ways the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.

This is the list of violations:

FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet

PPACA: Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March

EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February

OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years

NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities

EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas

EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate

DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States

DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number

DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law

DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ

Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)

EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church

DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain

DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will. Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

My question is simple, “Where is the media on this?” Why did I have to go to Pravda to find the link? The current administration needs to be reminded legally in a big way what the U.S. Constitution says about the government’s power in America. If the media won’t do that, the people need to do it in November.

Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon is reporting today on changes proposed by the Obama Administration to the medical benefits of our military veterans.

The article reports:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

I have already posted articles showing the difference between government workers pay and benefits and those of the private sector. (See Congressional Budget Office chart). Needless to say, military salaries are considerably lower than both. Why in the world would the President cut military benefits and not cut civilian defense department employees’ benefits?

The article further reports:

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

This is an outrage. Additionally the plan calls for large increases in the cost of Tricare for military families.

The article states:

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

This doesn’t sound like much, but consider the sacrifices our servicemen and their families make during their twenty or more years of life in the military. The favoring of civilian union employees over the military is obscene. These changes have to be passed by Congress–any bill proposed needs to be dead on arrival.

Fox News yesterday quoted President Obama on the failure of the super committee:

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference where he laid blame squarely on Republicans who refused to bend in their defense of tax cuts for the wealthy during debt talks. “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure.”

This is simply wrong. The only budget in the past three years proposed by a Democrat was President Obama’s, and it was voted down by the Senate 97 to 0 (according to The Hill).

Big Government posted a more accurate evaluation of where we are and how we got here by Representative Jim Jordan:

Jordan Responds to the Super Committee’s Lack of Agreement

Washington, DC – Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan offered the following statement after the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction failed to come to agreement, triggering $1.2 trillion of automatic spending cuts over a ten year period beginning in 2013:“

Throughout the year, the Republican Study Committee has offered solutions to address the debt crisis, including the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that passed the House with bipartisan support. But instead of a solution, Washington wanted a deal, and thus the Super Committee was created.”

“I want to thank our Republican leadership for holding the line on taxes. Higher taxes do not create jobs – they only serve to feed Washington’s insatiable appetite to spend.”“

I also want to thank Co-Chairman Jeb Hensarling for his leadership in trying to find bipartisan solutions to stop the out-of-control spending in a town that has only balanced its budget five times in the past 50 years. Unfortunately, this exercise has further proven that the liberal appetite for bigger government and higher taxes outweighs everything else.”“

Though President Obama acknowledged that entitlement programs are some of the biggest drivers of our debt, he has failed to show any leadership in trying to save them. Predictably, the tax-and-spend Democrats on the Joint Select Committee fell in line right behind him. Their failure of leadership could doom these important safety net programs.”“

Moving forward, there are clear and responsible ways to solve our debt and economic problems without raising taxes. I encourage Congressional leaders to advance the Republican Study Committee’s concrete solutions to create jobs, reduce spending, and balance the budget.”

Solutions from the Republican Study Committee·

H.R. 408, the Spending Reduction Act, identifies over 100 unnecessary programs, provides a head start towards balancing the budget, and saves taxpayers trillions of dollars over the next decade.

The RSC Budget for FY 2012 balances the federal budget in less than ten years and institutes reforms that will protect seniors and help save Americans’ health care safety net.

H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, cuts spending immediately, caps it in future years, and requires Congress to send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the American public for approval.

H.R. 3400, the Jobs Through Growth Act, cuts through red tape, creates a simpler and fairer tax code, and tears down barriers to energy production. In short, it creates jobs by growing the economy, not the government

H.R. 1167, the Welfare Reform Act, builds upon the successful reforms of 1996, paves the way to find efficiencies in the 70+ federal welfare programs, and returns welfare spending to pre-recession levels once unemployment falls to 6.5%.

This is a much more accurate picture of the history of the budget battle than the one given by President Obama. Higher taxes on the rich will not solve anything–they will only promote class warfare–one of the major talking points the Democrat party will use in the 2012 election cycle. We don’t need to punish people who have worked hard to be successful. Taking money away from people who work hard and giving it to other people does not encourage anyone to work hard. Do we really want the government deciding how much we are allowed to earn before they start taking it away from us?